Case law

Eberhardt v. Village of Tinley Park

2024 IL App (1st) 230139 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 24, 2024

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194-96 (1984) (rejecting the contention that a violation of a related state statute or regulation necessarily renders the state actor’s actions unreasonable for purposes of determining qualified immunity … ¶ 66 “Section 1983 establishes a cause of action for ‘the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws’ by any person acting ‘under color of any statute, ordinance

Luss v. Village of Forest Park

377 Ill. App. 3d 318 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 2007

(West 2006)) (Tort Immunity Act) governs the question of liability. … There is no dispute that the Village of Forest Park and Officer Baker qualify as “a local public entity” and “a public employee,” respectively, within the meaning of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/4 — 105 (West 2006))

People v. Bernstein

155 Ill. App. 3d 445 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 15, 1987

However, the tax levied there is clearly different than the tax imposed in the present case. … The recordkeeping requirement is part of a regulatory scheme established by the Department of Revenue and adequately fulfills the regulation requirement for the required-records doctrine.

Urban v. Village of Inverness

176 Ill. App. 3d 1 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 18, 1988

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (Ill. … Clearly, the Village was under no duty to repair this damaged, crushed drain tile or to prevent any flooding which it caused.

Hull v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services

356 Ill. App. 3d 300 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 10, 2005

Heymach’s report nor his curriculum vitae indicated that he has performed a radiological procedure such as that involved in this case, he failed to establish that he was qualified by experience or demonstrated competence … Heymach established that he was qualified by experience or demonstrated competence in the subject of the case. See 735 ILCS 5/2 — 622(a)(1)(iii) (West 2002); Apa, 288 III.

Kirk v. Arnold

2020 IL App (1st) 190782 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 2020

Instead, the State Registrar contended that the plaintiffs were barred by principles of sovereign immunity from assessing fees and costs against the State Registrar. … Initially, the trial court found that the plaintiffs’ fee- petition claim was not barred by principles of sovereign immunity.

Bigelow v. City of Rolling Meadows

372 Ill. App. 3d 60 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 19, 2007

Timeliness of the Action The City argues that this action was untimely because it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity … The plaintiffs’ action, therefore, is not barred by the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year statute of limitations.

Ryan v. Yarbrough

355 Ill. App. 3d 342 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 4, 2005

It would appear the dissent confuses the immunity created for parents and other persons " in loco parentis . " However, this immunity does not abrogate the duty but merely immunizes the party from suit. … Clearly, the duty is something other than simply to do everything reasonably possible to keep the child from harm.

Niziolek v. Chicago Transit Authority

251 Ill. App. 3d 537 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 12, 1993

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (See Pub. … The CTA was established to operate and maintain a mass transportation system in the Chicago metropolitan area.

Phillips 66 Co. v. Edgar

164 Ill. App. 3d 63 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 23, 1987

As we have stated, the evidence clearly showed plaintiffs agents intended that the 100% method be selected. … Defendants maintain they have a qualified immunity from suit under that legislation. We note that only injunctive relief is sought. (See Wood v. Strickland (1975), 420 U.S. 308 , 43 L. Ed. 2d 214 , 95 S. Ct. 992 .)

Fennerty v. City of Chicago

2015 IL App (1st) 140679 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 21, 2015

Summary judgment is a drastic method for disposing of litigation and should only be granted where judgment for the moving party is clearly appropriate. Outboard Marine Corp. v. … Id. at 248. ¶ 21 In so holding, the Tagliere court followed the established rule that to find an entity guilty of willful and wanton conduct under the Tort Immunity Act, one must show it had actual or

Leonardi v. Chicago Transit Authority

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 2003

She cites section 3-102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act), 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2000). … To qualify as a lease contract, "there must be an agreement as to the extent and bounds of the property, the rental price and time and manner of payment, and the term of the lease." Ceres Illinois, Inc. v.

Somoye v. Klein

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 8, 2004

In interpreting a statute, it is never proper for a court to depart from plain language by reading into the statute exceptions, limitations, or conditions which conflict with the clearly expressed legislative intent. … The Appellate Court, First District, has recently commented on the definition of "emergency" as that term is used in section 25 of the Act: "[T]here are a variety of situations which may qualify as emergency care under the

City of Park Ridge v. Clarendon American Insurance Co.

2017 IL App (1st) 170453 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 5, 2018

Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/6-105, 6-106(a) (West 2004)) and remanded the case for further proceedings. … At trial, Park Ridge was ensnared by its earlier defense that it was entitled to immunity under the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/6-105, 6-106 (West 2004)) because it had “provided no medical care of any kind

Piquard v. Board of Education of Pekin Community High School District No. 303

242 Ill. App. 3d 477 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 19, 1993

Here, it was clearly the plaintiff’s responsibility under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement to challenge the seniority lists if her name did not appear on any list for which she was qualified and certified. … Carol Martin clearly had more seniority than the plaintiff.

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. City of Evanston

89 Ill. App. 3d 701 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 1980

Rather, this action was clearly brought and tried under Federal statute for the alleged violation of Krishna’s constitutional rights by Evanston. … Ct. 2689 . 6 Stringer makes reference to the “closely related doctrine” of qualified immunity which, at the time of that decision, was arguably available to a municipal defendant as an alternate basis with which to avoid

People v. Pantoja

35 Ill. App. 3d 375 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 5, 1976

People, 184 Ill. 338 , 56 N.E. 408 ), it is clearly within his discretion to warn a witness of potential incrimination where the need appears. (State v. Brown (Me. 1974), 321 A.2d 478 ; State v. … The record in this, case clearly establishes defendant’s guilt of armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s final contention is that the sentence is excessive.

Wolowinski v. City of Chicago

238 Ill. App. 3d 639 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 5, 1992

To properly state a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. (Wojdyla v. … This argument is based upon section 3—102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev.

People v. Clark

125 Ill. App. 3d 608 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 9, 1984

These photographs, included in the record on appeal, establish that the detention facility’s intercom system was clearly visible from the defendant’s cell. … While the defendant stated he was not told about the monitoring system, photographs included in the record on appeal establish that the jail intercom system was clearly visible to him.

Peters v. Riggs

2015 IL App (4th) 140043 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 18, 2015

establish that [the City] intended pedestrians to utilize Chestnut Street.” … Further, it has expressly stated that section 3-102(a) does not grant defenses and immunities and that “[i]mmunities and defenses are provided in other sections” of the Tort Immunity Act.